LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Storm]

There is no basic human right to gaydom.

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There's two.

:rainbow1:

P.S. And freedom of religion. Three.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no basic human right to gaydom.

Now, I must strongly disagree. One shouldn't even attempt to chastise people just because they happen to have attraction to people of the same sex. It is neither something they chose nor something that hurts anyone, not anymore than heterosexuality itself.

 

[painted wolf]

Once again I feel the need to say that I don't think any particular church has the right to tell me who I can and can not marry. My religion and my church have no problems with who I chose as my spouse and according to the Constitution we have the right to follow our religion.

If your church chooses not to marry us that is fine, its your right... we are not in your religion and don't want to be married by you anyway. But you have no right telling me what I can and can't believe about god and my relationship to the divine.

Regardless of my rights to 'gayness' I still have the right to freedom of religion.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alas no. The statement attacks the integrity of people it is highly unlikely the poster actually knows. This is untoward.

No, it's calling a spade a spade. What's untoward is fear-mongering and peddling propaganda.

The substance is also incorrect as redefining marriage to include same sex couplings would indeed mean it would become part of California School curriculum.

"It" as in endorsement of same-sex marriage? If so, then you've made quite the leap there.

Alas no. The statement attacks the integrity of people it is highly unlikely the poster actually knows. This is untoward. The substance is also incorrect as redefining marriage to include same sex couplings would indeed mean it would become part of California School curriculum. Further, as is occurring right now in Massachusetts: the ACLU is arguing that parents opposed to their children being exposed to gay marriage (both text and instruction), cannot opt out.

Red herring. That Massachussetts case was based on Massachussetts law that explicitly requires schools to provide diversity education that encourages respect on a number of topics, including sexual orientation. It wasn't a consequence of their legalization of same-sex marriage at all.

 

[Orontes]

There is no basic human right to gaydom.

Do you have any idea how hurtful remarks like that are?

Hello,

It isn't intend to be hurtful. It is intended to address reality. Rights do not simply exist because a person would be hurt if they didn't. A person might assert they have a right to be a cat, but no such right exists. There are two basic modes by and through which rights exist: positive law and natural law. Gay marriage doesn't fit under either.

 

[Orontes]

Alas, yes. May people voted "yes" based on false information. Therefore, the win was because of a lie.

It doesn't follow that voting on false information thereby means there was a lie. False information qua false information and lying are distinct. More to the point, there were no lies in the "Yes on 8 Campaign". You are confused.

How would it become part of the school curriculum? In what way?

Under California Education Code it requires that instruction and material must teach respect for marriage. If marriage is redefined to include gay coupling then ipso facto, gay marriage becomes part of the mandatory instruction.

There is no basic human right to gaydom.

Thank you for that very ignorant comment.

This is not a retort. It is simple invective. If you wish to make an argument for a right to gay marriage do so: assertion alone is not compelling.

Now, I never mentioned a right to "gaydom". My comment was about the right to marry whoever you want. Only heterosexuals have that right. There is a basic human right to equality, which is what is being denied to homosexuals.

There is no right to marry whoever one wants (under state auspice). One cannot marry their sister. One cannot marry their pet. One cannot marry polygamously. One cannot marry the same sex etc.

 

[Storm]

It isn't intend to be hurtful.

That's my point. You people never stop to consider that you're causing real people real pain. The question is, do you care?

It is intended to address reality.

I don't think so. I think it's intended to justify bigotry.

Rights do not simply exist because a person would be hurt if they didn't. A person might assert they have a right to be a cat, but no such right exists. There are two basic modes by and through which rights exist: positive law and natural law. Gay marriage doesn't fit under either.

And there's the bigotry. If your God exists, He made me queer. Who are you to question Him?

 

[Orontes]

In simple terms: once a right is declared the state is no longer a neutral party, but must both sanction and endorse that right. The base argument being put forward in Massachusetts by the pro-gay lobby is that the state cannot allow any opting out as that would undercut the whole purpose of the state instilling acceptance.

Fair enough, and IMO the answer for those who ask why a civil union isn't enough and/or the same as a marriage. The true matter isn't so much the name itself, but how far the State should go in recognising and supporting same-sex unions.

It is probably a good idea for us same-sex marriage supporters to make that clear: we do indeed want the State to go all the way and fully support and recognize such unions, including for diplomatic and educational purposes. I do, at least (keeping in mind that I don't live in the USA).

All the same, it is also probably a good idea for those who dislike the idea of their own communities recognizing "foreign" same-sex marriages and/or having their children learning about them as a normal part of society at school to admit that this is a real concern of theirs, and the reason why they don't want civil unions to be fully elevated to marriages. I happen to strongly oppose such a stance, but it would be hypocrital of my part to fail to recognise that such worries do exist, and some people few very troubled indeed because of them. I don't think they should, but there is precious little I can do directly to help them out of such worries.

Fair enough?

Hello,

I agree. Gay marriage advocates should make their case in the public square. If enough of their countrymen come to agree, then legislation will be passed to that effect. This is the democratic process. Trying to usurp that process through judicial imperialism is an affront to the democratic ideal. Unfortunately, loyalty to legitimate process isn't something many seem to care about.

 

[Storm]

Hello,

I agree. Gay marriage advocates should make their case in the public square. If enough of their countrymen come to agree, then legislation will be passed to that effect. This is the democratic process. Trying to usurp that process through judicial imperialism is an affront to the democratic ideal. Unfortunately, loyalty to legitimate process isn't something many seem to care about.

:no: When has the majority EVER voted to empower the disenfranchised?

 

[Orontes]

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There's two.

:rainbow1:

P.S. And freedom of religion. Three.

Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (and freedom of religion) are, as one might guess, liberties. This means they exist in a space separate and distinct from state endorsement. The state has no attending duty in their regard. To explain further, if the pursuit of happiness is a liberty one enjoys, then one is free to seek it in a variety of ways, but such action is reducible to the individual, not the state. If on the other hand, one asserted there is a right to happiness, then the state would be mandated to make one happy. To relate this to gay marriage: people are at liberty to marry who they want now: the same sex, animals, tress etc. If one marries a tree and proclaims it to the world it is not illegal. However, the state does not have any duty to recognize such. The issue is about sanction and endorsement. Gays and pro-gay supporters are attempting to achieve social acceptability through the power of the state. Do you see?

 

[Orontes]

Now, I must strongly disagree. One shouldn't even attempt to chastise people just because they happen to have attraction to people of the same sex. It is neither something they chose nor something that hurts anyone, not anymore than heterosexuality itself.

As noted in another post: Rights do not simply exist because a person would be hurt if they didn't. A person might assert they have a right to be a cat, but no such right exists. There are two basic modes by and through which rights exist: positive rights and natural law. Gay marriage doesn't fit under either.

I agree with Foucault (himself as gay as the day is long): gayness is a social construct.

 

[Storm]

Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (and freedom of religion) are, as one might guess, liberties. This means they exist in a space separate and distinct from state endorsement. The state has no attending duty in their regard. To explain further, if the pursuit of happiness is a liberty one enjoys, then one is free to seek it in a variety of ways, but such action is reducible to the individual, not the state. If on the other hand, one asserted there is a right to happiness, then the state would be mandated to make one happy. To relate this to gay marriage: people are at liberty to marry who they want now: the same sex, animals, tress etc. If one marries a tree and proclaims it to the world it is not illegal. However, the state does not have any duty to recognize such. The issue is about sanction and endorsement. Gays and pro-gay supporters are attempting to achieve social acceptability through the power of the state. Do you see?

I see someone scrambling to justify oppression.

Equal treatment under the law. Four.

 

[Storm]

I agree with Foucault (himself as gay as the day is long): gayness is a social construct.

Then so is being straight.

 

[Orontes]

No, it's calling a spade a spade. What's untoward is fear-mongering and peddling propaganda.

Alas. attacking the integrity of people simply because you disagree with them is its own refutation.

"It" as in endorsement of same-sex marriage? If so, then you've made quite the leap there.

No, I have not.

Red herring. That Massachussetts case was based on Massachussetts law that explicitly requires schools to provide diversity education that encourages respect on a number of topics, including sexual orientation. It wasn't a consequence of their legalization of same-sex marriage at all.

You are confused. Gay marriage did not come to the fore nor was it part of the curriculum in Massachusetts until the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a gay marriage right by fiat.

 

[Storm]

Alas. attacking the integrity of people simply because you disagree with them is its own refutation.

Bigots have no integrity to attack.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello,

I agree. Gay marriage advocates should make their case in the public square. If enough of their countrymen come to agree, then legislation will be passed to that effect. This is the democratic process. Trying to usurp that process through judicial imperialism is an affront to the democratic ideal. Unfortunately, loyalty to legitimate process isn't something many seem to care about.

Excuse me, but I hope you're not trying to imply that it is "judicial imperialism" to demand for needed changes such as same-sex marriage. If you are, I ask you to show me just how that is not legitimate process.

 

[LuisDantas]

As noted in another post: Rights do not simply exist because a person would be hurt if they didn't. A person might assert they have a right to be a cat, but no such right exists.

You are SO wrong, Orontes. Assuming you to be an american, much of the very idea of founding your country comes directly from defending basic rights and freedoms.

Or so I have learned, anyway.

There are two basic modes by and through which rights exist: positive rights and natural law. Gay marriage doesn't fit under either.

Ex-cu-se me! I hope you're kidding. Because I sure can't take this claim seriously at all.

I agree with Foucault (himself as gay as the day is long): gayness is a social construct.

Sorry, but Foucault or no Foucault, that's just indefensable.

 

[Magic Man]

It doesn't follow that voting on false information thereby means there was a lie. False information qua false information and lying are distinct. More to the point, there were no lies in the "Yes on 8 Campaign". You are confused.

Thanks for the insult (you're doing well with them today), but I'm quite clear on this, no confusion at all. False information is a lie, whether it's intentional or not. There were many lies in the campaign for "Yes on 8". I'm assuming your objection there is that they weren't outright lies, but perhaps mistakes, because I sure hope you can at least see the false information presented by that campaign. Either way, you're incorrect.

Under California Education Code it requires that instruction and material must teach respect for marriage. If marriage is redefined to include gay coupling then ipso facto, gay marriage becomes part of the mandatory instruction.

OK, so teach respect for all kinds of marriage. I'm still not seeing the problem here. As long as it's not teaching that you should be gay and get married, there is no problem there.

This is not a retort. It is simple invective. If you wish to make an argument for a right to gay marriage do so: assertion alone is not compelling.

There is no right to marry whoever one wants (under state auspice). One cannot marry their sister. One cannot marry their pet. One cannot marry polygamously. One cannot marry the same sex etc.

Thank you for bringing up that tired old argument again. It's so fun to have to dispell the same crap all the time.

One can marry whoever one wants provided both parties are of legal age and consenting. You obviously know this already, so please stop with the incest, bestiality stuff. The reason one cannot marry the same sex is not connected with those other things. You cannot marry your pet because your pet cannot consent. You can't marry your relative because of other complications, etc. This is beneath you, Orontes.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are confused. Gay marriage did not come to the fore nor was it part of the curriculum in Massachusetts until the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a gay marriage right by fiat.

Fiat? It is called "acting in the best interests of people", really.

 

[Orontes]

That's my point. You people never stop to consider that you're causing real people real pain. The question is, do you care?

"You people" indeed.

I do care, but basic intellectual maturity means I cannot simply give in to assertions because someone makes them or will have a fit or beign name calling if all don't agree.

I don't think so. I think it's intended to justify bigotry.

And there's the bigotry. If your God exists, He made me queer. Who are you to question Him?

Denying a right claim does not then constitute bigotry. One is not a bigot if they disagree with incestuous or pederastial marriage.

There are no "queer" infants.

:no: When has the majority EVER voted to empower the disenfranchised?

Are you unfamiliar with political history? The 15th and 19th Amendment would be two simple examples.

Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (and freedom of religion) are, as one might guess, liberties. This means they exist in a space separate and distinct from state endorsement. The state has no attending duty in their regard. To explain further, if the pursuit of happiness is a liberty one enjoys, then one is free to seek it in a variety of ways, but such action is reducible to the individual, not the state. If on the other hand, one asserted there is a right to happiness, then the state would be mandated to make one happy. To relate this to gay marriage: people are at liberty to marry who they want now: the same sex, animals, tress etc. If one marries a tree and proclaims it to the world it is not illegal. However, the state does not have any duty to recognize such. The issue is about sanction and endorsement. Gays and pro-gay supporters are attempting to achieve social acceptability through the power of the state. Do you see?

I see someone scrambling to justify oppression.

Equal treatment under the law. Four.

Actually I'm explaining the basic difference between a libtery claim and a right claim. It has nothing to do with oppression. If one is at liberty to pursue happiness, it does not mean the state has a duty to make one happy.

I agree with Foucault (himself as gay as the day is long): gayness is a social construct.

Then so is being straight.

This doesn't follow. Because one thing is a social construct it does not then mean other things must also be social constructs. I do think men are polysexual however: men can be aroused by a whole host of things. Sexual fetishism is a simple example.